Lelchook et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al

Filing 183

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In these circumstances, the Court determines that there is no just reason for delaying entry of a final judgment as directed in its February 18, 2022, Memorandum and Order, and certifies as such for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 5/5/2022. (Layne, Monique)

Case 1:16-cv-07078-ILG-RLM Document 183 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3486

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ESTER LELCHOOK,individually and as

personal representative ofthe Estate of David
Martin Lelchook, MICHAL LELCHOOK,
YAEL LELCHOOK,ALEXANDER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

16-CV-7078(ILG)
(RLM)

LELCHOOK,and DORIS LELCHOOK,

Plaintiffs,

against
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,THE
CENTRAL BANK OF THE ISLAMIC

REPUBLIC OF IRAN (a/k/a Bank Markazi
Jomhouri Islami Iran), BANK SADERAT IRAN,
and BANK SADERAT,PLC,
Defendants.

GLASSER,Senior United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Ester Lelchook, individually and as representative of the Estate of David Martin

Lelchook, Michal Lelchook, Yael Lelchook, Alexander Lelchook, and Doris Lelchook'
(collectively,"Plaintiffs") brought claims pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et

seq.("ATA"), Israeli negligence laws, and Massachusetts tort law against defendants the Islamic
Republic ofIran, the Central Bank ofthe Islamic Republic ofIran, Bank Saderat Iran("BSI"),and
Bank Saderat, PLC ("BSPLC") (collectively, "Defendants"). Am. Compl. [ECF No. 81].
Following BSPLC's withdrawal of its counsel and failure to substitute new counsel, the Court
entered a default judgment against it and referred the issue of damages to Magistrate Judge Mann

'Doris Lelchook, the mother of David Lelchook, died on December 5, 2018. On February 24,
2019, the Court substituted Alexander Lelchook, the Executor of Doris Lelchook's estate, as
plaintiff.

Case 1:16-cv-07078-ILG-RLM Document 183 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3487

to hear and determine. Lelchook v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 393 F. Supp. 3d 261, 269-70
(E.D.N.Y. 2019).

In an extensive, thoroughly researched, and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 177], Magistrate Judge Mann wrote "[t]he ATA does not include language authorizing
foreign nationals to bring ATA claims in a U.S. court for their own injuries caused by an act of
international terrorism." Lelchook v. Islamic Republic ofIran, No. 16-CV-7078(ILG),2020 WL

12656283, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2020). Ester Lelchook, as an "estate, heir, or survivor" of
David Lelchook,can sue, even as a foreign national, to seek to recover under the ATA for David's

economic damages. However, as a foreign national suing on her own behalffor her own injuries
and not for a national of the United States, Judge Mann found that she failed to establish her
entitlement to relief under the ATA. Id. at *5-6. Judge Mann concludes her Report by

recommending that Ester Lelchook's motion for a default judgment on her individual claim for
damages pursuant to the ATA be denied. Id. at *7. Ester Lelchook objected pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3)to that part ofthe Magistrate Judge's Report. [ECF No. 179].

In a February 18, 2022, Memorandum and Order [ECF No. 180], the Court reviewed de
novo that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which objection was made - the
determination of whether a survivor must be a national of the United States to sue for her own

injuries under the ATA. The Court noted that pending on appeal to the Second Circuit was Estate
of Henkin, 495 F. Supp. 3d 144 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), in which this question was to be resolved.
Lelchook v. Islamic Republic ofIran, No. 16-CV-7078 (ILG)(RLM), 2022 WL 499901, at *2

(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18,2022). Therefore, while adopting the Report and Recommendation in part, the
Court deferred a ruling on that part of the Report and Recommendation to which objection was
made until Henkin is decided. The Court directed Ester Lelchook to advise the Court when the

Case 1:16-cv-07078-ILG-RLM Document 183 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3488

Second Circuit renders its decision in Henkin so that it can be guided appropriately with respect to
her objection. Id.

The remaining plaintiffs have now requested that the Court clarify its February 18, 2022,

order to expressly hold, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that "there is no just reason for delay"

in directing entry of final judgment as to their claims despite the fact that Ester Lelchook's claim
remains pending. [ECFNo. 182].

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that "[wjhen an action presents more than one claim for
relief... or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as
to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that

there is nojust reason for delay." Only after such an express declaration is thejudgment considered

final and appealable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In determining whether to make this declaration,
"[t]he proper guiding star, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, is 'the interest of sound judicial
administration.'" Ginettv. Computer Task Grp., Inc.,962 F.2d 1085,1095(2d Cir. 1992)(quoting
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,446 U.S. 1,8(1980)).
Here, Ester Lelchook's individual claims for relief are based on the same facts as those of

the other plaintiffs. Should the Second Circuit decide that a foreign national may bring her
individual claim for personal damages under the ATA,this Court will most likely enter a default
judgment in favor of Ester Lelchook, just as it did for the other plaintiffs. An appeal of that
judgment would raise the same facts and legal issues as would an appeal ofthe partial final default
judgment the Court has already entered. However, because the issues on appeal would more than
likely be not merely related, but identical, resolution of the appeal from the judgment in favor of
Ester Lelchook would require nothing more than a summary order, a minimal use of judicial
resources. Moreover,the Court considers the impact of delaying the ability ofthe other plaintiffs

Case 1:16-cv-07078-ILG-RLM Document 183 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3489

to proceed with the enforcement oftheir judgment. Indeed, they have already been waiting since
2006, when their injuries first occurred. In these circumstances,the Court determines that there is
no just reason for delaying entry of a final judgment as directed in its February 18, 2022,
Memorandum and Order, and certifies as such for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
May 5,2022
/s/
I. Leo Glasser

Senior United States District Judge